dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2923

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas to Mango

Premium Member

to Mango

Re: BC lawyers vote against law school with anti-gay policy

»www.vancouversun.com/tou ··· =9933524

An interesting post related, among other things, to the supremacy of God preamble.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to eweazel

Member

to eweazel
said by eweazel:

I already stated, they have the right to go to a Bigotry school, they have a right to be taught by bigots, and they have a right to their beliefs, but don't come crying for fairness when graduating from that bigotry school when no one wants to hire you. Its that simple.

So the bigotry you made up is just an excuse for your actual bigotry. Gotcha.
said by eweazel:

Religion in public anything, needs to be stopped before we turn into the Southern U.S. States.

Again, PRIVATE school.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

In fairness, I think eweazel is arguing that lawyers are a public profession, but I'd say that's stretching the definition of public.
Styvas

Styvas

Premium Member

Having said that, even if you could successfully argue that the legal profession is a public one, that places it squarely under the charter, which offers protection against discrimination on the basis of religion.

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel to IamGimli

Member

to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

So the bigotry you made up is just an excuse for your actual bigotry. Gotcha.

Look up the word Bigotry, stating that you are against same sex marriage is BIGOTRY !!
said by IamGimli:

Again, PRIVATE school.

Private school yes, but when they leave they want to deal with PUBLIC laws.
eweazel

1 edit

eweazel to Styvas

Member

to Styvas
said by Styvas:

In fairness, I think eweazel is arguing that lawyers are a public profession, but I'd say that's stretching the definition of public.

Correct, that's what I was going with, it might be somewhat stretching it, but in reality Religion should be confined to peoples home, not into the public. Especially when you think everyone should be forced to follow your beliefs. Not saying this is where this BC Law school is taking things, but the people behind it sure like to push their agendas, all they need is a door a crack open.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

1 recommendation

Styvas

Premium Member

said by eweazel:

said by Styvas:

In fairness, I think eweazel is arguing that lawyers are a public profession, but I'd say that's stretching the definition of public.

Correct, that's what I was going with, it might be somewhat stretching it, but in reality Religion should be confined to peoples home, not into the public.

In your opinion, perhaps, but not under Canadian law.

Especially when you think everyone should be forced to follow your beliefs. Not saying this is where this BC Law school is taking things, but the people behind it sure like to push their agendas, all they need is a door a crack open.

Considering your earlier comparison to the southern U.S., I'd suggest that you don't have a clue about the Christian tradition that dominates the staff, faculty, and students at TWU. Your identification of TWU's motivations with regards to its law school is merely your belief and based on no evidence other than your own fearmongering. I get it, you're not a big fan of Christians, but you're allowing that distaste to both cloud your judgment and, if you were in a position to do so (as the law societies currently are), discriminate against the Christians at TWU (since your intentions for the school are crystal clear).

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel

Member

said by Styvas:

since your intentions for the school are crystal clear

Yup Abolish any religious schools. Those are my intentions.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

Including private schools. Really!? I find that a hard attitude to understand.

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel

Member

Why is it hard to understand.

I was a Catholic, went to Catholic schools and when I came out I realize that no matter what the Curriculum was, they still taught us with an underlying belief based on religion. So it really doesn't matter what you are taught or what curriculum you are taught, or what they say they wont teach, if its faith based in principal, those elements will bleed into the core of the teachings.

This country was not based on Religion, but the charger gives people their Freedom of Religion, but there is also the trumping attitude of Freedom from Religion. And my fear, call it mongering call what you please, really doesn't matter, its that this Religious attitude which held unchecked will bleed into other parts of lives, and since their are many many different religions out there, it will also open the doors for other faith based beliefs being taught aspect of laws.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

1 recommendation

Styvas

Premium Member

So your core objection is the faith of the people, and based on that faith you would deny them full participation in society (certain jobs they can't have, etc.). You may want to brush up on human rights legislation (and the Charter), since you are likely to come up against it if you ever put that perspective into actual action.

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel

Member

said by Styvas:

So your core objection is the faith of the people, and based on that faith you would deny them full participation in society (certain jobs they can't have, etc.). You may want to brush up on human rights legislation (and the Charter), since you are likely to come up against it if you ever put that perspective into actual action.

Nope you read into that what you wanted. My core objection is not the faith of the people, they have a right to their faith, practicing it in public is what I am against. You know you can separate the two. Going to a law school where you are going to fight for peoples rights, but being taught not only the law of the land, but have it based on your faith is a nonstarter, youc an go to the school, I have made that perfectly clear, but don't go crying afterwards when people who don't hold your BELIEFS, dont recognize your credentials. Its no different then going to a school to study something, having all the knowledge you have after graduating, but not getting jobs because your school is not a recognized school. They know where they stand but yet choose to go to that school, the onus is on them to correct it, or live with their decisions.

And yes this world would be a much better place if religion was never invented.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

You said, "Abolish any religious schools. Those are my intentions." I can only go on the basis of your words, since I can't read your mind. So which is it? Abolish religious schools or not?

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

eweazel

Member

Abolish Religious schools (faith based teachings mixed with public teachings).

They want to teach their fairy tales, great, go ahead, teach your fairy tales, but dont mix it with public service teachings. I also have against teaching young children anything faith based, but that's an argument for another day, and even this one I am getting tired of for now.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

I'm sure everyone reading this appreciates knowing where you're coming from. Cheers!
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to eweazel

Member

to eweazel
said by eweazel:

They want to teach their fairy tales, great, go ahead, teach your fairy tales, but dont mix it with public service teachings.

Again, you're making shit up. They're NOT "teaching fairy tales", they're teaching the exact same law school curriculum as any other law school in BC. That has been verified and approved by the law society of BC.

The religious thing in play here is that they request prospective students to state that they, in their private life and while on campus, will behave according to a code of conduct which reflects the faith of the school. It's has absolutely f-all to do with what they're taught.

As I've said before you're using your own bigotry against religion to portray this private school in a false light, only to call them bigoted.

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel

Member

said by IamGimli:

...

Based in Langley, B.C., last year TWU announced plans to open Canada's first Christian law school, a move that drew sharp condemnation from corners of Canadian legaldom due to the school's "community covenant," which forbids homosexual relationships and sex outside marriage.

That dear sire is Bigotry. My hate for Religion and anything to do with that fairy tale is not. They have the right to practice their beliefs, again this is the first law school with a religious theme. No where did I say religious people should not be able to practice law, they have every right, but going to a BIGOTRY school, which takes away freedoms from individuals then expecting everyone to just accept you even though you don't accept others the way they are is hypocritical and I am all for it not be accredited. it is that simple
said by Styvas:

I'm sure everyone reading this appreciates knowing where you're coming from. Cheers!

Being a Proud Atheist, this is awesome, I don't hide the fact I am an atheist and want Freedom from Religion.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to eweazel

Premium Member

to eweazel
said by eweazel:

said by IamGimli:

So the bigotry you made up is just an excuse for your actual bigotry. Gotcha.

Look up the word Bigotry, stating that you are against same sex marriage is BIGOTRY !!

Personally, I support same sex marriage.

But I don't believe that someone who opposes same-sex marriage is a bigot (unless he/she is against gay people generally).

The definition of bigotry that I see is:

[intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself]

which makes you the bigot AFAICT especially considering all your diatribes against religions.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

1 recommendation

Styvas to IamGimli

Premium Member

to IamGimli
The approved curriculum is taught from a Christian perspective. That doesn't mean that the content is changed; it means that the content takes on new meaning when viewed through the lens of a Christian worldview. It also means that the motivations for action may be different.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I won't try to give a legal example, but I can use a business example. Let's say we're considering ethics. Some might say that we act ethically because a trustworthy business attracts more customers. A Christian worldview might come to the same conclusion that ethical business activity is the right choice, but the reason for that conclusion may be about social justice rather than profits, and respecting the inherent dignity of customers, employees, and suppliers as God's valued creation.

Or perhaps it's about respecting the environment (since I brought up creation). A secular view on the environment might focus solely on saving it for our children or mitigating future financial losses because of fines or whatever. A Christian worldview might also consider those things, but would also consider our role as stewards of God's creation.

Those might be lousy examples, but my point is merely that one can look at the same content through different eyes. You could also suggest that a post-modernist professor would consider curriculum in one way, while a modernist professor yet another way. Or a politically left leaning professor might teach the same content differently than one who leans to the right. Or a feminist differently from a misogynist. The examples don't have to be opposites of each other. That's just what came to mind.

The fear that I sense in someone like eweazel is that the Christian profs are going to take the content and change it according to some agenda (e.g., teach how to use the legal system to reverse same sex marriage, or teach students that defending gays is morally wrong so you should undermine their cases, or whatever). That's simply nonsense. Business is business; literature is literature; math is math, and the law is the law. We learn, according to our worldview, how to interact with the world around us so that the meaning we make of it informs how we see the world. Only the ignorant jam a round peg into a square hole and then call it a strawberry. Could an ignorant person take classes at TWU? Probably. But that's not the basis for judging the school. it has to be judged on its own merits.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1 to eweazel

Premium Member

to eweazel
said by eweazel:

Nope you read into that what you wanted. My core objection is not the faith of the people, they have a right to their faith, practicing it in public is what I am against. You know you can separate the two.

I don't think that you can fully do so, in a free society.

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel to PX Eliezer1

Member

to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:

Personally, I support same sex marriage.

But I don't believe that someone who opposes same-sex marriage is a bigot (unless he/she is against gay people generally).

The definition of bigotry that I see is:

[intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself]

which makes you the bigot AFAICT especially considering all your diatribes against religions

Than I stand corrected, I consider myself anti Religion, and want freedom from Religion, and would have no problem if that school took away the " which forbids homosexual relationships" from its books.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas to PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer1
When one's faith is their identity, no...it can not be separated between public and private. Would someone expect a gay person to only be gay behind closed doors but keep it to themselves out in public so as to not offend anybody? Of course not. In fact, that's the requirement they've been fighting to cast off.

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel to Styvas

Member

to Styvas
But that's my main concern, if its true that they state " which forbids homosexual relationships" that goes against the rights of Canadians as a whole, and going to a school that has that in their charter or whatever you call it, does go against anything I would accept.

Religious people practice law, they are in every law firms, I don't object to that, I object to this school and what it stand for, that's the short end of it.

I hate being this I guess the word you guys want to give me and I will take is Bigotry toward religions, but I don't like how this school is going about doing things, and the lawyers in BC and the Ontario Law society has agreed. There is something fundamentally wrong when lawyers are standing up and going against a law school.
eweazel

eweazel to Styvas

Member

to Styvas
said by Styvas:

When one's faith is their identity, no...it can not be separated between public and private. Would someone expect a gay person to only be gay behind closed doors but keep it to themselves out in public so as to not offend anybody? Of course not. In fact, that's the requirement they've been fighting to cast off.

I wish to the high jeebus, that religion would just disappear, I know some people need it, and I work with all types of religious people, I have no problem with it. BUt this case is different, they are coming from a school who states they don't want homosexual relationships, and its the first school to open in Canada with that stipulation, we should allow it, give it full standing, it creates a very dangerous precedent.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

1 recommendation

Styvas

Premium Member

You're aware that the school has been operating since the 1950s, right? It's the law school (as one department of the University) that is being proposed as a new school.
Styvas

1 recommendation

Styvas to eweazel

Premium Member

to eweazel
I find it interesting that you go on and on about how you don't like religion in a thread focused on a school that you characterize as not liking gays. Pot meet kettle?

eweazel
join:2008-12-09
Etobicoke, ON

eweazel

Member

I don't like religion, something that is taught from books that were written 2000 years ago with people who have an agenda and keep wanting to pass their beliefs onto others.

Gay is something you are born with and who the mentioned above keep trying to hold back by using their 2000 year old book as the compass while ignoring any parts that might effect their own lives.
eweazel

eweazel to Styvas

Member

to Styvas
I had no idea, to be honest with you. But the law school should not be accredited, its that simple as long as they stand by their charter regarding homosexuals.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas to Mango

Premium Member

to Mango
»thechronicleherald.ca/no ··· facebook

This took some courage. Good for him!
graniterock
Premium Member
join:2003-03-14
London, ON

graniterock to TigerLord

Premium Member

to TigerLord
I certainly have no issue with a private school wishing to teach from a certain perspective. I do have a bit of an issue with them trying to dictate what (married or not) adults do with themselves in their free time. If a gay person is OK with being taught from the framework being offered (which is different from agreeing), why should they be denied the education? Someone shouldn't be kicked out of school for having sex in a manner that is otherwise legal.